So, I can potentially use a Divine Staff as a Wizard with UMD using my own CL? How about the DC?
Is the minimum necessary to cast the spell? What happens if you have feats that apply to the school of the spell being cast? Do they apply?

Staves are neither divine nor arcane, but yes - a divine spell in a staff uses your CL if higher than the staff. (this is one of the neat things about staves.)

The DC? I haven't found it explicit anywhere in the rules yet. As I read the rules it's a flat DC 20.

Feats apply; spell focus, spell penetration and similar.

Staves use caster's ability score, feats, and CL. Source; This is in the reminder text to the arcane discovery "staff-like wand" in UM. And elsewhere but I don't recall where.

You would need to make the UMD check if the spell isn't on your list, yes. However, it is easy to make the UMD check for a spell trigger item, and it's a class skill for any class with a trait.

Yeah, but staves are a particular case because:

they use your feats
CL

So eventually you end up having to roll for:

Use Staff
Emulate Ability Score
Maybe emulate even CL?

It uses your CL if it's higher, staves have their own CL. And whatever your stat is (if non-caster - highest mental I guess) will just have to do. The UMD is just an unwritten flat DC 20 (activate wand is the closest to what is wanted).

On staves: They are made to be thematic and situational more than powerful(or even generally useful) but there are neat tricks for longer campaigns using custom staves.
I love staves, but I'm also a lot more flexible with them than most. Eg. swords or other items with staff-like usage.

Considering that putting another spell on the Staff increases its price to stupid prices, you end up having to craft 1 Staff for each Spell, which can create problems on your action economy during combat.

If you Craft the Staff yourself, as a Wizard, honestly, you're just better of getting Staff Like Wand, Craft Wands and be happy.

1) Not so, only the most powerful spell is cost x400

second most powerful is x300 (25% discount)
beyond that spells are x200 to craft (50% discount)
- so to optimize you would have a staff of 5th level spells, another for 6th level spells, 4th and below can all go in one because of the minimum caster level.

2) I love staff like wand from an economical viewpoint, but if I have to get craft staff for it, I want to craft a staff - and it will have spells with costly components or troublesome foci.

If a GM doesn't allow crafting or custom crafting or any other potential aspect of a pathfinder game, then that's not where you go for that aspect; that cannot be a problem tied to Staves as an item concept, it's a GM problem/choice.

Did I miss something guys, why do we care so much about crafting staves? It's seems a totally unworkable solution to wait till level 11 and burn a feat on trying to craft hugely expensive items at only half the price. And I'd be hesitant to even let this power be in the hands of Players, it can too often end up with something really crazy such as a hodge podge of spells they are interested in but don't have any utilitarian combination. Like for example mixing general-damaging spells with powerful-debuff spells, they end up using up the charges they should have been saving for the debuff.

By level 11 you're getting about 26'000gp as they work their way through to level 12. Double it for higher point-buy. This is the point where time becomes way more valuable than money and the focus has changed so much away from trying to get lower level spells into staves. We're now into the 6th Level Spells. Money supply has increased such an order of magnitude that scrolls of haste are more economical

This is the point where the game ramps up into overdrive, imo, setting in crafting requirements is too much. No matter how little time you may be able to spend crafting the problem is that while your wealth has scaled up the amount you can craft per day has not, you're stuck far behind. You're trying to iceskate uphill. Crafting makes a lot of sense at medium-low levels where you get a lot of straightforward choices and can craft little bits of the items you want. But for the higher levels the GM should be generous and drop the magic items.

And the inherent nature of magic item pricing makes it more important to have MORE magic items than higher level magic items. Because magic items scale at a rate greater than exponential. When you go to replicating a level 2 spell the cost goes up by more than a factor of 2 but also a factor of the caster level which is higher than the spell level by a further factor. This means a Staff of Black Tentacles (just Black Tentacles, no secondary ability) costs half the wealth you'd gain...

Crafting is a way to get what you want/need without praying to the 2d4 items off the random item charts. And a way to modify and improve your items, it also takes away the trade-in tax on magic items.

The cost of magic items does not scale at a rate "greater than exponential" - it's quadratic (sometimes linear), significantly lower than exponential.

For many spells that don't rely too much on caster level, a staff is not the way to go, the same goes for spells you want to use every single day or encounter. The price of staves is such that having a staff with just one spell is slightly more expensive than a wand. The advantage of a staff is multiple spells at lower cost per spell, spell level x caster level x 300 for second most powerful, SLxCLx200 for the rest, and here crafting can be quite good for adding utility to your staff.

Yes, a couple scroll are cheaper if you end up not using them, but I want to make a wizard that exists and does stuff in between fighting dragons and watching rogues search for traps. And staves can have unique abilities that help identify a crafter as something other than "generic elf conjurer - variant #2".

If anybody forced characters to use staves, I would agree they are terribly designed, but as it stands - staves are an option, and not a bad one certain campaign styles such as sandbox and kingdom building. They are higher level items and they shine at higher levels - and at the same time gives power beyond level for low level characters.

Staves are great resources for a caster that uses spells in her downtime, even more so for expensive spells. But I would prefer (and do houserule) staves, rings, and rods as one item creation feat - allowing crafting at the current levels.

I like staves, but that may be because of some interpretations of mine:
1) it doesn't have to be a staff, it may be a sword or other held item. If the creator has the feats (eg. craft magic arms and armor AND craft staff for a greatsword "staff")
2) it can be modified after creation, following the rules for adding abilities and upgrading items.

But if time isn't given to maintain/recharge one or two staves per caster using them, then it's not really rechargeable and should be priced a lot lower for that campaign.

It's almost too good for costly/diverse spells like limited wish, I think it's 110-120,000 gp and extremely versatile. Even though non-thematic and single spell staves are frowned upon - which I agree with.

Why do they (0 HD races) get 3 undead racial HD? I don't follow that. They just get 2 HD. Right?

Yes that formula would result in CR 20 which is better than CR 9. Which is again why I referred to the important rule of thumb: compare to similar CR monsters when customizing monsters, which this is.

The CR system is not perfect and comparing templates with different requirements on the base creature, may not always give logic results, especially when power is reduced to a single number; like fighter 20 vs. wizard 17 (a bit extreme, but illustrates the problem with CRs calculated only by formula.)

Re-reading the CR entry for skeletal champion I can see your arguments, it just doesn't make sense to me to consider class levels worth only about half for this creature (solely).
So I take it - "normal skeleton with the same HD" - to mean "normal skeleton with the same racial HD advanced with class levels" (even though they can't - that's irrelevant, sorry for mentioning it)

I still read "same HD" as taking into account race and class. And that way the formula makes more sense. Ie. no skeletal champion sorcerer 18th against my poor APL 6-9 party.

If it was to be read as "same number of HD", it would use those words. (In a perfect world with no legacy system issues etc.)

poisoned? diseased? making the saves? cursed? special wanna-die-can't-behealed-viking-power? or he just tells them he doesn't wish to live.

On the other hand: GMs and NPCs shouldn't always get their wishes, so if they save him against his will he can go off and commit seppuku later - or carry a nice grudge against the PCs - or get over it and become a farmer.

The way I see it:
You want NPC to die. Fine.
You force NPC death against PCs' healing attempts. Fine.
You let the PCs save NPC against his own wishes. Fine.
You push the players to play their PCs to "want" to let NPC die. Less fine.

Yes? Skeleton cr+1 leads to silly things like applying it to a fighter 18 and then the CR drops to 9.

Which is obviously stupid.

I believe class levels increase CR by 1 per level. How do you get fighter 18 is CR 9?

Undead racial HD and class HD are not the same.

For one thing, that's not true (it depends on whether they're associated class levels), and for another, because that's what the template says to change the CR to after you've applied it.

That's how templates work. You have a base creature (in this case a fighter 18), and then you apply the effects of the template, changing the CR in the procces. You're thinking of monster advancement. I'm not adding class levels to anything.

The template makes no distinction between Racial and Class HD, and while that distinction exists, it requires the mentioning of either 'Racial Hit Dice' or 'Class Hit Dice' to come into effect. The overall 'Hit Dice' term includes both racial HD and class HD.

Okay, that explains the calculation.

I don't agree that the template doesn't distinguish between the racial and class (it says "same HD" - rather than "same number of HD"). I read it as you use the skeleton CR table for the undead racial HD and add CR increase according to class levels to that - and finally +1 CR.

For example; a 10 undead racial HD skeleton does not have the same HD as a 5 undead racial HD skeletal champion fighter 5th.
They have the same number of HD but not "the same HD".

18 levels of fighter were added at some point in your example. It doesn't matter in which order you build a monster.

1) Minotaur dies -> becomes skeletal champion -> gains 10 class levels
2) Minotaur gains 10 class levels -> dies -> becomes skeletal champion
The CR should be the same, because it's the same monster - and the rules for customizing suggest you look at similar power level and adjust to that. And given I consider the minotaur with the template stronger than without, I would choose the higher CR - and I believe/claim that the rules for skeletal champion template do as well.

Check him for horizontal spin, if he keeps his dice lying top side up (like I and many other gamers do). He might be picking up with finger tips and it only spins around a vertical axis and 'locking' the top side in the up position. With practice you can gain very good control with a d20 (harder) and lower dice (easier). Physically bigger dice make this technique easier to learn.

Remember: it might not be intentional. I had a DM who did this with his oversized d20 without realizing it, he figured the die was weighted - but it wasn't for anybody else :) it was his way of throwing the die.

UE says "treat as temporary bonus for the first 24 hours". Some effects work differently with temporary and permanent ability score increases, off the top of my head I can only think of bonus spell slots.

It is 'treated' as a permanent increase, if it actually was a permanent increase that sentence wouldn't make any sense.

I like prestige classes but I would like to replace them with an alternate system closer to the benefits from organizations. Something like (much) weaker mythic progression, parallel to class levels and advancement independent from XP.

A quick google image search for "london map old" or "ancient city map" gave some good city maps in decent resolutions. There are good for references, New York might be a little harder since it's a relatively new city.

Scale is hard - don't worry too much about it. Old maps and cheaper maps before the printing press were wildly inaccurate. The bird's eye view with mathcing scale wasn't really a thing before modern times. Maps were more useful when they showed the relations between places; four cities along a road, a pictogram of an iconic structure, bridges and other crossings. Eg. Theme park maps use this format over 'correct scale' - quickly find where you are and the direction for where you want to go.

Do partial maps of districts and an overview map with less detail. When you're satisfied with some of them scan them to digital and move them about and rescale using photo editing software. Or do cutouts and clear tape.
I redo a lot when making maps, I still don't have a good way to make complete maps.

Complete maps are difficult if the city doesn't exist yet. Many cities spring up around resources; a river (delta), a natural harbour, mineral deposits, traderouts crossing, natural defences, magical leylines, or even a wartime fortification repurposed in peace time. Start small and build the history.
NOTE: History may never come up in play, so skipping this might be worth it. I mention it because I enjoy that particular approach.

This is one way I start sketching out a large city if I don't have a clear image.

Write down keywords for what you want, you've done this.

You could start with drawing an interesting skyline, then assign a few words to the iconic/defining structures of the city (from that angle). Make an outline of the city directly below the skyline, draw vertical lines to place the skyline structures and major parks/places in the city - not too close, not too spread out these things like to arive together but apart from existing - the areas around these structures are high value property, it's more prestigeous to be closer important buildings and probably safer.

Main import/export hubs: port(s), gates, maybe pseudo-airport, portal hub - some can overlap with important structures. Close to these are your primary marketplaces (often both sides of gates, inside being more expensive). Markets are mostly safe places, so living close is better, ie. more expensive. Where does food come from?

Government? Bureaucracy? how does govenment change?
Policies? magic, necromancy, constructs, flying, teleportation? taxes?
Race/class divide? all races in all classes or more segregated?
Cities within the city: China town/Tengu town? Ghettos can be both interesting and annoying.
Names and people: who build the bridge? how long ago? how is the city developing now?
Surrounding area: forests, farms, suburbs, neighbouring towns/cities, roads.
Threats: A dragon? internal power struggle? close border to an enemy?

Once you start filling in the blanks you quickly get a lot of material. Ideas have a tendency to multiply like rabbits.
And don't bother if it won't come up in play, unless it's for the sake of world building.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I thought there was a distinction between Greater Teleport and Interplanetary Teleport.

With Greater Teleport you have to know about a location upon a planet in order to teleport there otherwise the spells fails. Just knowing that a planet exists does not suffice. But if you happen to know there is a temple to Cthulhu shaped like a pyramid there, you can teleport to the temple without error even though you have never seen it.

With Interplanetary Teleport you just have to know the planet exists and the spell will find somewhere safe for you to land. You don't actually have to know anything about the planet in question.

A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.

That is from PCS: Distant Worlds.

So? By 'you' I meant 'you as a player'. And if a player somehow gets (sp) planeshift - I would still require a focus... because I'm a jerk GM who says you lack the inherent understanding of planar travel that allows some creatures with that ability inherent to their kind to travel without foci.

Also

DonDuckie wrote:

Outsiders with (sp) planeshift might be less restricted as they don't see the planets as all that different from one another

In short; you need a special focus for the spell to arive on a different planet, otherwise planeshift takes you to the planet you're 'most familiar with'.

That's pretty reasonable and sensible. Does that mean that there might be strange or non-standard forked rods that would let one plane-shift to secret and hidden regions in the the planes? For example, special rods to plane-shift to border regions between planes.

Page 3 of that same (and amazingly awesome) book also explains that simply plane shifting twice isn't a viable method for interplanetary travel.

Can you go into more detail about this?

In short; you need a special focus for the spell to arive on a different planet, otherwise planeshift takes you to the planet you're 'most familiar with'.

Every location on the material plane is equidistant from other planes, if you didn't have rules guiding where you end up you'll most likely end up in an empty part of space as there is a lot of that.

Outsiders with (sp) planeshift might be less restricted as they don't see the planets as all that different from one another.

The book only covers these things in less than half a page, so a lot is up to the GM.

-- my way --
The way I play it is the focus needed for planeshift is specific to one location on one plane.
Lesser foci are just tied to a plane and very dangerous to use.
(And these are NOT in a component pouch).

Arcanist doesn't have spells known like a spontaneous caster (ie. no spells known table), they are prepared casters and use spellbooks, so if they are granted an arcane bond from a sorcerer level that allows them to cast any sorcerer spell known. If granted through exploit, then it should probably work as written in the wizard entry: something like 'any spell in spellbook she is able to cast.'

if both sorcerer multiclass and exploit, then it should stack and be able to cast one spell per day from either class.

I suppose the arcane bond in either case would also be required to be worn/wielded to cast spells without a concentration check.

It's better to stay in ninja, but if you insist then I would suggest sorcerer (not with cha 1), wizard, arcanist, or MAGUS... something with cantrips and an offensive cantrip such as acid splash. 1d3+sneak attack for an at will touch attack. Ninja vanish trick.

As I understand it:
- at (caster) level 10 you can control 40 HD worth of undead, and
- create 20 HD with one casting of animate dead - 40 HD in desecrate area.
- Without desecrate you could still cast animate dead twice to reach your maximum 40 HD controlled undead, you just can't make a single undead above 20 HD (as you wrote).

but can you 'have 20 HD worth of undead from 1 casting' in addition to controlling up to 40 HD from caster level. Is that how that should be read?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking but you 3 bullet points are definitely correct.

If your last sentence is asking do you get 20HD worth of undead plus another 40 HD? No absolutely not. If more specifically your asking if casting the spell and having caster level give you different pools of HD, no, absolutely not. The only thing that does that is the Command Undead feat (and I think maybe some necromancer specific archetypes/prestige classes).

As I understand it:
- at (caster) level 10 you can control 40 HD worth of undead, and
- create 20 HD with one casting of animate dead - 40 HD in desecrate area.
- Without desecrate you could still cast animate dead twice to reach your maximum 40 HD controlled undead, you just can't make a single undead above 20 HD (as you wrote).

but can you 'have 20 HD worth of undead from 1 casting' in addition to controlling up to 40 HD from caster level. Is that how that should be read?

I would say 'no', it's still destroyed at 0 hp and a destroyed undead can't be healed. In the hour it takes to regain 1 hp I wouldn't consider it an undead creature, just the remains of one. So it wouldn't show up with detect undead or similar.

Which raises a secondary question, if it isn't counted as undead at this point, would that then make it immune to positive energy/holy water damage that would otherwise destroy it?

I wouldn't think so. If the deathless can define how it comes back it can also define what prevents it from coming back.

I see it a bit like the reincarnated druid archetype it's reincarnate class ability works even if it's dead, otherwise it does nothing which was hardly the point.

It doesn't mean that all abilities are retained in death/destruction, just these two and those similar.

I would say 'no', it's still destroyed at 0 hp and a destroyed undead can't be healed. In the hour it takes to regain 1 hp I wouldn't consider it an undead creature, just the remains of one. So it wouldn't show up with detect undead or similar.

Thanks everyone! And sorry about the wrong forum, wasnt sure where to put it.

Second question then-since I doubt the character would want to focus all his time on it, is it possible to work on it for x amount of days, then make a check, use it as say, a +1 Wild armor, then keep upgrading it?

yes, that would make it a +4 item: 16000gp, 8000 in cost and 16 days (8 fast craft) still DC 14 (plus 5 for missing baleful polymorph)

he can work while adventuring spending 4 hours per day and advancing 2 hours of progress (4 hours fast craft) (and 8 hours makes a full crafting day)

Fifth, he needs to be 9th level to create +3 armor (the requirement is enhancement bonus x3), and he needs to be 9th level to create Wild, so that's convenient.

He doesn't have to be caster level 9th, level requirements only exist when listed as "creator must be caster level 9th" in requirements (I've only seen these for constructs) and they can't be replaced with +5 DC.

The listed caster level for items are only to set DC of crafting, and some fringe caster level checks against the item.

EDIT: I stand corrected. Enhancement bonus does come with a caster level requirement (which might be overcome with a +5 DC). Special ability caster level is still not a requirement.

As a GM you are free to add effects of an item without adding the item itself, it could be special training or a magical tattoo as mentioned above.

As long as it is within the creatures 'wealth' it shouldn't change CR. Monsters and encounters don't have to follow character building rules.

Where I wouldn't like it is where an item is explicitly used agianst the characters. If he's shooting at them with a fireball hurling pistol, then I want there to at least be that pistol - even if the effect was tied to the character (and don't o that too often). Disappearing items really break immersion for me - it makes it too much like a computer game where after a long fight against somebody with a minigun, if I win - I want that damn minigun :D

Haven't tried it and I don't think I will. It increases power of the caster, and reduces power for martial classes in this fireball scenario:

active saves: many rolls against the fireball gives a spread among the enemies which often have the same stats. Some make the save and some don't.

passive saves: one roll against many similar static values means they all fail or succeed at once which could be devastating to either side.

And here is my main concern; static saves means when the group is attacked and somebody(at least one) fails then the low save characters ALWAYS fail, again and again, encounter after encounter - and that is not fun play to me who likes TWF and combat maneuver builds.